By
James DeGiulio --
Teva
and Novartis Settle Patent Dispute over Zometa
Teva
first sent Novartis two Paragraph IV notices on June 10, 2008, claiming that
Novartis' U.S. Patent No. 4,939,130 was either invalid, unenforceable, or wouldn't be
infringed by Teva's proposed generic. Novartis claimed that Teva had inappropriately sent the Paragraph IV
notices before filing its ANDA (see "Court Report," August 3, 2008). Thus, Novartis asked the District Court to declare Teva's
Paragraph IV notices invalid and require the company to file new notices before
the clock on the 30-month stay can start.
The
parties subsequently reached an agreement, with Judge Sue Robinson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware signing off on the parties'
stipulation of dismissal. The stipulation dismisses without prejudice all
claims, counterclaims, and defenses in the action. Both Teva and Novartis will pay their own costs and
attorneys' fees. No other details were available.
Judge
Robinson's dismissal order can be found here.
Teva
and Sun's allegations that Pfizer's Protonix patent was invalid as obvious and
invalid for double patenting were rejected in a recent court decision, which upholds
an earlier jury verdict affirming the validity of Pfizer's U.S. Patent No. 4,758,579,
covering the heartburn drug.
Wyeth,
the licensee of the '579 patent and now part of Pfizer, and Altana Pharma AG,
now part of Nycomed, brought a patent infringement suit against Teva in May
2004 following Teva's ANDA filing. In September 2007, Judge
Jose
L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found that Teva had raised sufficient
issues over the patent's validity, and denied a motion for preliminary
injunction to stop Teva from launching generic versions of Protonix. In April,
a jury found the '579 patent valid, disagreeing with allegations by Teva and
other generic firms that the patent was invalid based on obviousness and
double-patenting (see "Biotech/Pharma Docket," May 10, 2010).
Sandoz
Loses Motion for Interlocutory Appeal in Effexor Patent Suit with Wyeth
Sandoz's
bid for an interlocutory appeal has been denied following a grant of partial summary
judgment for Wyeth in a patent infringement suit over the depression and anxiety
drug Effexor.
Wyeth
sued Sandoz in 2007, claiming that Sandoz's ANDA infringed three patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,419,958, 6,403,120, and 6,274,171 (see "Court Report," July 1, 2007). Following a Markman hearing, Wyeth moved for summary judgment regarding Sandoz's direct infringement,
active inducement of infringement, and contributory infringement of several
claims in the three patents. On March 12,
Judge James Denver of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina granted Wyeth's motion for summary judgment over all the infringement
claims against Sandoz. At the same
time, he denied Sandoz's motion for summary judgment for noninfringement and
invalidity, finding the defendant's arguments based on inappropriate claim
construction. Following this ruling, Sandoz asked Judge Denver to immediately
certify his order granting summary judgment to Wyeth for an interlocutory
appeal.
James DeGiulio has a doctorate in molecular biology and genetics from Northwestern University and is a graduate of Northwestern University School of Law. Dr. DeGiulio is a member of MBHB's 2010 associate class and he can be contacted at [email protected].
Comments